St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-06-13

qucSCiOnS WHICH arise Tor their corporate
| action.
"The state in such cases may remove
cannot compel it,"
1T was held in Hasbrouck vs.. MiIwau-
kee, IL Wis. az, that the legislature can
not compel the city to issue its bonds or
levy tax to pay for harbor improve
ment (the work having been done under
a void contracD, although it might per-
init the city to take upon itself such an
obligation.
This case was approved in Mills VS..
Cnarlton, 20 Wis. 400413, Chief Justice
Dixon using these words:
III is opposed to all our ideas on the
subject that the legislature might in the
Hrst instance have imposed tax upon
the city OF Milwaukee for the improve
ment of the harbor without the assent
OF the people of that city or of the COM
mon council.
In Atkins VS.. Town of Randolph, 81
VT. 22S, the question was whether the
Legislature could clothe a person with
power to contract, without the authori-
cation. consent or knowledge of the
town, for and in the name and on the
credit or the town, and thereby bind it
by contracts thus made, and the Court,
a1Ger citing the cases relied upon very
1ully, says: "These cases and many
more that might be cited, fully indicate
the double character which such cor
pOratlonS bear, and the rights which
they have and the relations which they
sustain by virtue of such character re-
| Spectlveiy. They are expressions and
illustrations of the reason why, from
the fact of towns existing in organized
corporations, primarily for certain pub
nc political purposes, as auxiliary to
| the practical government of the state,
ana as such are under the abso-
lutte control of the legislature, it does
not follow that they, as organized cor
poratlons, or the inhabitants composing
them, can be subjected arbitrarily to
pecuniary burdens and liabilities, to be
responded to either by the property of
the town or its inhabitants -
If, through the artificial continuance
OF municipal corporations, of which the
! inhabitants of the state must be mem
| DerS, nolenteS vOlenteS, such cOnse-
| quenceS can be wrought out, most per-
sons would invoke the exercise of the
annlhllating power Of the government
over such corporations, rather than of
the power of the police regulation, in
virtue of which alone, this provision of
the law is sought to be sustained
And the court refused to sustain the
law.
A very clear statement of the law is
found in the Chicago Park cases. In
People eX rel McCagg VS.. Mayor, ETC.,
81 Ills. II, we find the Lincoln Park law
considered and held void, and a man
damus refused.
The act considered fixed the bounda-
rleS of Lincoln Park and provided for
It's Improvement, and i'll providing
means for the paying for lands to be
taken for the park, required the mayor
and other officers of the city to issue
bonds on the requirement of the Park
Commissioners created by the act. This
requirement was absolute and was not
left to the discretion of the people or
the municipal authorities.
1t will be seen that this Illinois act
was in terms what the Minnesota act is
construed to be by the Park Board.
Chief Justice Breese in deciding the
case puts the decision largely upon
provision of the state constitution of
like effect to provision in the consti-
tuition OF our own state, and says, after
pointing out that taxes may be imposed
for police regulation. ''But the tax au-
thorized by the act in question is for
purpose purely local and corporate,
having no other element about it, and
the commissioners appointed by it are
III no sense corporate authorities of the
Oi.y vi OHiCdSo. Iuey are mere
agency to accomplish the purpose Speci-
fed in the act, and made to supercede
the regularly constituted authorities
of the city, to whom, by the charter of
the city, had been committed the estab-
llShment, control and government of
the parks of the city.
Although no express power is con-
ferred by this act upon the Commits
slonerS to assess and collect taxes, vet
its equivalent, or what is worse and
more oppresslve-a power has been
conferred upon them to impose a
burden upon small locality, and with
lars, to remove which a resort
must be had to taxation to
continue for series of years. The
relaters have cited numerous cases as
authority in support of the point
they make, but they have failed to find
a case wherein it has been held that the
legislature can compel city, against
its will, to incur debt by the issue of
its bonds for. a local improvement.
While it is conceded that municipal cor
poratiOns which exist only for public
purposes are subject at all times to the
control of the legislature creating them,
and have in their franchises no vested
rights, we are not of opinion
that that power, such as it is, can be so
used as to compel any one of our MANY
cities to issue bonds against its will, to
erect park, or for any other improve
ment-to force it to create debt of
millions-in effect, to compel every
property owner in the city to give his
bond to pay debt thus forced upon the
city. If the principle be adj
mitted that the legislature can, unin-
vited, of their mere will, impose such
burden as this upon the city of Chicago,
then one much heavier and more Oner-
Gus can be impoSed-in short, no limit
can be assigned to legislative power in
this regard"
eff this power is possessed, then it
must be conceded that the property of
every citizen within it is held at the will
and pleasure of the legislature. Can it
be that the general assembly of the
state, just and honest as its members
may be, is the depository of the rights
of property of the citizen? Would there
be any sufficient security for property if
such power was conceded? No we'll
regulated man can entertain the idea
that it is within the constitutional com
potency of the legislature to subject the
earnings of any portion of our people to
the hazard of such legislation.
1--WE fail to perceive any real differ
ence in principle in forcing this burden
upon the city and imposing a like
burden. by the direct action of the leg
islature upon individual property OWL
ers within it. Rather than attempt sub
mission to such law, surely, the alter
native should be presented to the city to
be deprived of its corporate franchises.
The respondents are officers of the
city, elected by the people of the several
wards. They represent the people.
They are their lawfully constituted
agents, and have refused to issue the
bonds demanded. The question is
merely local, and no rights that we can
discover having been acquired under the
law, a proper case for our interference